Background Gavel
Graeme Molloy
Year of call:


Graeme is a pragmatic and meticulous advocate who quickly grasps and identifies the issues in a case. He builds a strong and approachable rapport with his lay and professional clients from the outset and has a reputation for exceptional hard work and commitment to every case he is instructed in recognising that every case is the most important issue in his client’s life at that point.


Graeme is a member of the Criminal Bar Association and the South Eastern Circuit.


Graeme has been involved in the criminal justice system for almost 30 years. Graeme practised as a Solicitor and High Court advocate before transferring to the Bar.

Graeme brings a wealth of professional and practical experience to his practise and is a down to earth advocate, who employs meticulous preparation in all matters that he is instructed in.

Graeme has experience across the full spectrum of offences and is regularly instructed in serious violence, multi-handed drugs matters, firearms cases, serious robberies and complex cases involving technical evidence.

Notable Cases

Serious Organised Crime

R. v IW et al – Instructed to defend a man charged with conspiracy to transfer a firearm. Defendant acquitted after trial.

R. v. MG et al – Defendant charged jointly with possessing a firearm with intent to endanger life. Acquitted after trial.

R. v. BU et al – Instructed to defend a man charged, along with 18 others, with Conspiracy to supply a class A drug. This was an organised crime group operating both nationally and internationally supplying uncut cocaine through a huge network across the country.

R. v. MN et al – Instructed to defend a man charged with being involved with an international conspiracy to import class A drugs as part of an organised crime group.

Operation Mohawk – Instructed to defend in a 10-handed, 15 Count Indictment alleging conspiracy to commit fraud and Possession of Criminal Property in relation to rogue traders preying on the elderly and vulnerable to secure roofing work that was never done or done poorly, for excessive fees.

Violent Crime

R. v. AS et al – Instructed to defend a man charged with the robbery of Olympic cyclist, Mark Cavendish, in his home.

R. v. H – Instructed to defend a defendant charged with a single count of robbery of a G4S cash delivery to the NatWest bank. Secured a suspended sentence order for the defendant.

R. v. NF – Instructed to defend a man charged with GBH with intent in relation to an acid attack on his cousin. Acquitted after trial.

R. v. IS et al – Defendant charged with kidnap, blackmail ABH, and possessing an imitation firearm. Acquitted of kidnap after trial.

R. v. DL – Defendant charged with attempted murder, GBH with intent, and coercive behaviour in relation to his then partner. Acquitted after trial of attempted murder and GBH with intent.

R. v. B - Instructed to defend one of two defendants charged with attempted murder. Defendant acquitted.

R. v. BC – Instructed to defend a man who robbed the complainant in his own home stealing cash before which the complainant was threatened with a firearm.


R. v. JL – Defendant charged with drugs supply offences and raising a modern slavery defence. Prosecution offered no evidence at trial.

R. v. KF et al – Defendant charged with conspiracy to supply Class A drugs, utilising juveniles to ‘run’ the drugs.

R. v. TR – Defendant charged with importation of Class A drugs. Crown offered no evidence after service of defence statement.

Rape and Serious Sexual Offences

R. v. TB – Instructed to defend a defendant who was charged with four Counts of marital rape over a 20-year period and sexual assault.

R. v. SH – Instructed to defend a defendant charged with rape of a child under 13, Incitement of a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity, abduction.

R. v. LC – Defendant charged with rape of his partner. Acquitted after trial.


R. v. KM – Instructed to defend a man charged with a number of others with fraud and possessing criminal property where corporate bank accounts had been accessed via a scam and the use of a corrupt bank manager.

R. v. CF et al – Defendant charged with conspiracy to commit fraud in relation to bounce back loans, and securing investment funds from others by fraud.

High Court Matters

R v Francis [2011] All ER (D) 47 (Jun) - Reported – The appellant was convicted after trial of dangerous driving. He had driven a Range Rover erratically at speed over a distance of some two-and-half miles, swerving from side to side having consumed some alcohol. Following conviction, the appellant was sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment. The 16 months sentence was quashed and substituted with a sentence of 12 months.

R v Clift [2012] EWCA Crim 2750 –The appellant was convicted of murder having 10 years previously been convicted of section 18 GBH. The trial Judge had admitted in to evidence the original section 18 conviction pursuant to section 74(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. It was argued that this was wrong in law as the original conviction was not ‘to do with the facts of the original case’ but was ‘the facts of the original case’. The argument was founded on the proposition that once the conviction was admitted the burden of proof shifted from the Crown to the appellant and that therefore the conviction in consequence was unsafe. Furthermore, even if the conviction was admissible, the Judge should have exercised his discretion pursuant to s.78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to exclude the evidence. The Court of Appeal having considered both written and oral submissions dismissed the appeal.

R (on the application of Ukaegbu) v Northampton Crown Court (2013) QBD (Admin) (Turner J) 04/09/2013 Reported – The short issue was whether a Judge was correct in revoking bail following the defendant’s recall on licence. The court held: “[I have] difficulty in understanding conceptually how the revocation of the claimant's licence made a difference in terms of whether or not his bail should be withdrawn in a subsequent decision. The revocation of his licence was effectively a decision not made by a court and not one that was based on any additional features which are relevant to the other matters’ characteristic to the context of a bail application, such as likelihood to commit offences whilst on bail and the other well-known issues.

R v Buckle [2015] EWCA Crim 229 Court of Appeal – The appellant having pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to an offence of causing serious harm through dangerous driving was sentenced to 42 months’ imprisonment the maximum penalty being 60 months. The sentencing Recorder placed the case at the top end of the statutory maximum. This appeal was of some importance as this was a new offence for which there were no sentencing guidelines. The Court of Appeal addressed the question of guidelines and held that ‘ each case, the Court is entitled to determine, on the individual facts of that case, whether a starting point at – or very close to – the maximum level is warranted.